| Kudrina v 82-04 Lefferts Tenants Corp. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06839 [110 AD3d 963] |
| October 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lilia Kudrina, Appellant, v 82-04 Lefferts TenantsCorp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Ahmuty, Demers & McManus (Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, NewYork, N.Y. [Lisa L. Gokhulsingh], of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered December 1, 2011,which granted the motion of the defendants 82-04 Lefferts Tenants Corp. and LTDManagement for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againstthem.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she fell on the sidewalkabutting premises owned by the defendant 82-04 Lefferts Tenants Corp., and managedby the defendant LTD Management (hereinafter together the moving defendants). Theplaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the moving defendants, among others.The moving defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofaras asserted against them. The Supreme Court granted the motion on the ground that themoving defendants did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual orconstructive notice of it. We affirm, albeit on a different ground.
To impose liability upon the moving defendants for the plaintiff's injuries, there mustbe evidence showing the existence of a dangerous or defective condition, and that themoving defendants either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of itand failed to remedy it within a reasonable time (see Winder v Executive Cleaning Servs., LLC, 91 AD3d865 [2012]; Davis vRochdale Vil., Inc., 63 AD3d 870 [2009]; Starling v Suffolk County Water Auth., 63 AD3d 822[2009]; Medina v Sears,Roebuck & Co., 41 AD3d 798 [2007]). A plaintiff's inability to identify whathad caused him or her to fall is fatal to his or her case, and a defendant moving forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint can meet its initial burden as the movantsimply by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him or her tofall (see Dennis v Lakhani,102 AD3d 651 [2013]; Zalot v Zieba, 81 AD3d 935 [2011]). Here, the movingdefendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bysubmitting, inter alia, a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, whichshowed that the plaintiff merely speculated as to the cause of her fall (see Hunt v Meyers, 63 AD3d685 [2009]; Ludin vCrestwood Country Day School, Inc., 36 AD3d 866 [2007]). In opposition, theplaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68NY2d 320 [1986]; Litvinoff vKaur, 102 AD3d 928 [2013]).[*2]
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctlygranted the moving defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ.,concur.